Patrick on Tuesday rejected the bill and sent it back to legislators with a proposed amendment. Patrick said the bill is flawed because it depends on $135 million in revenues from certain tolls on the Massachusetts Turnpike that are scheduled to be removed in fewer than four years.

Gov. Deval PatrickAP file photo

Patrick's amendment says that if and when the tolls come down, the state Department of Revenue would be directed to increase the gas tax by the amount necessary to replace the lost toll revenue.

Patrick said he would sign the bill if the change is approved. He estimated the gas tax would need to increase by about 4 or 5 cents a gallon to compensate for the loss of revenues if the tolls are removed.

"I'm not going to sign a bill that doesn't get the job done," Patrick said at a press conference. "I've said that for months."

Patrick said he is concerned with the need to assure "regional equity" in the bill.

If the bill is less than $800 million, then transportation needs in regions such as Western Massachusetts might be neglected, Patrick said in an interview with The Republican after the press conference.

"The day of reckoning is near in terms of unmet needs elsewhere," Patrick said.

While he said he supports the "Big Dig" central artery project in Boston, that project exhausted available transportation dollars for about 20 years, shortchanging the rest of the state, Patrick said.

The turnpike tolls west of Route 128 are set to come down on Jan. 1 of 2017, when the debt on that western section of the turnpike is retired, meaning the state would lose about $135 million in revenues.

In response, House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray issued a joint statement, saying lawmakers approved "a carefully calibrated" bill and they will ask legislators to vote to turn down the governor's proposed amendment.

"The administration's proposal tying the question of tolls in Western Massachusetts -- a plan not even mentioned in its original bill -- to a 4 cents gas tax increase places too high a burden on the taxpayers of our state," DeLeo and Murray said in their statement. "This threatens working families and businesses still fighting to overcome the financial downturn."

The state Legislature on June 26 sent Patrick a transportation financing bill that would raise $500 million a year this fiscal year and about $800 million a year by 2018. The bill increases the gas tax by 3 cents to 26.5 cents a gallon by about the middle of this month, hikes the cigarette tax by $1 to $3.51 a pack and imposes the sales tax on computer design services.

Speaking with reporters, DeLeo said there is no need to change the bill.

"It's a good piece of legislation," DeLeo said. "It's a real piece of legislation. It is going to get the job done."

Rep. George N. Peterson, a Grafton Republican and the assistant minority leader in the House, said he would not vote for Patrick's amendment. Peterson said he supports removal of the tolls in 2017, but he does not believe an increase in the gas tax is needed to make up for the lost toll revenues.

Peterson said the bill will be raising a lot more than estimated by Democratic leaders. He said legislators should wait until 2017 and see how much revenues are being generated by the bill.

"He (Patrick) wants so much money right now," Peterson said. "I have a problem with that."

Patrick said the state needs $1.2 billion a year for transportation improvements, but he is willing to compromise on $800 million.

If the tolls come down in 2017, the bill will never raise $800 million, Patrick said.

Patrick said he would discuss options if legislators prefer to raise another tax or tolls to make up for the loss of $135 million. Patrick said he prefers to close the projected gap in financing with the gas tax and he likes the idea of the turnpike tolls coming down as scheduled.

"One way or another, we have to plug that hole," Patrick said.

Legislators will need to vote whether to accept or reject Patrick's proposed amendment. If they vote against the amendment, they would then vote whether or not to pass the bill again and send it back to Patrick.

If legislators approve the bill again after rejecting the governor's amendment, Patrick would then have the option of vetoing the bill. A two-thirds vote would be needed in the House and the Senate to override a veto.

Patrick did not say whether or not he would veto the bill if his amendment is nixed.